The third and most important question is that which concerns the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Dvornik thinks he can prove that it was abrogated by John VIII. To this end, he makes use of documents transmitted by Yves of Chartres, not taking account of the fact that these fragments originated at the Photian council where the papal documents had been altered. He makes use also of the Western juridical tradition according to which the ecumenicity of this council did not appear until the end of the eleventh century. One should not forget that this council of 869, which produced no definition of faith, was convened solely to decide on matters relating to persons and that, after the Photian question had been settled at the council of 879, there was no reason to bring it up again, and the peace of the Church demanded that it not be. But between this and an abrogation there is quite a stretch. Furthermore, the complete letter from Pope Stephen I to Emperor Basil I (which we presented at the International Congresses of Byzantine Studies of Paris and of Bruxelles) shows clearly that no pope, up to Stephen’s time, had annulled the acts of the Eighth Council.http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/grumel-on-dvornik/

http://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/879-880-constantinople-robber-council/3. Pope John VIII of Rome of pious memory (872-882) did not annul the Council of 869-870. Daniel Stiernon [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 180] points out that nowhere does Pope John VIII, in his genuine (i.e., unmodified) letters, abrogate the 869-870 Council, and he cites [n. 148] Fr. Venance Grumel, A.A., “Les lettres de Jean VIII pour le rétablissement de Photius,” in Echos d’Orient, XXXIX (1940), 138-156. Stiernon also stresses [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 176] that in the pope’s genuine letter to Byzantine Emperor Basil I the Macedonian [MGH, Epist., VII, 169), Pope John VIII cites canon 68 of the 419 local Council of Carthage [Mansi III:771E], which reads:

not that the Council which met about this matter in foreign parts should be done away, but that it may remain in force with regard to those who so will to come over to the Catholic Church that there be procured by them no breaking of unity… there shall not be objected to them the decree contrary to their honor adopted by a foreign council, for salvation is shut off to no one, that is to say, that those ordained by the Donatist party, if having been corrected they have been willing to return to the Catholic Church, are not to be received in their grades, according to the foreign council; but they are to be excepted through whom they received the advice to return to Catholic unity.”

4. Moreover, the letter of Pope Stephen V of pious memory (885-891) to Emperor Basil I in 885 or 886 proves that no pope annulled the 869-870 Council, since Photius, who nonetheless died in the odor of sanctity, was still, at the time, trying to have the former council abrogated. See Fr. Grumel’s “La Lettre du Pape Étienne V a l’empereur Basile Ier” on pp. 129-136 of the 1953 edition of Revue de etudes byzantines; the letter, according to p. 137, is from the manuscript Sinaiticus gr. 1117, 326v-328v. Fr. Dvornik of pious memory did not address this even in the 1970 edition of his monumental work, The Photian Schism

Dvornik in fact did take the editing of pope John's letters into account. He explains in Byzantium and the Roman Primacy that they were edited with the consent of the legates.

I'd like to see this letter which "proves" that Photius was trying to have the 870 council annulled in 885. Unfortunately, your sorry little source seems not to have included any quotation from it.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

He came right out and said Theodore of Mopsuestia, condemned as a heretic by the Church in Ecumenical Council, was "the great teacher of Orthodoxy." That enough for you?

The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematized Pope Honorius. THAT is enough.

But you go on ahead and depend on the words of deposed heretics.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

http://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/879-880-constantinople-robber-council/3. Pope John VIII of Rome of pious memory (872-882) did not annul the Council of 869-870. Daniel Stiernon [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 180] points out that nowhere does Pope John VIII, in his genuine (i.e., unmodified) letters, abrogate the 869-870 Council, and he cites [n. 148] Fr. Venance Grumel, A.A., “Les lettres de Jean VIII pour le rétablissement de Photius,” in Echos d’Orient, XXXIX (1940), 138-156. Stiernon also stresses [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 176] that in the pope’s genuine letter to Byzantine Emperor Basil I the Macedonian [MGH, Epist., VII, 169), Pope John VIII cites canon 68 of the 419 local Council of Carthage [Mansi III:771E], which reads:

not that the Council which met about this matter in foreign parts should be done away, but that it may remain in force with regard to those who so will to come over to the Catholic Church that there be procured by them no breaking of unity… there shall not be objected to them the decree contrary to their honor adopted by a foreign council, for salvation is shut off to no one, that is to say, that those ordained by the Donatist party, if having been corrected they have been willing to return to the Catholic Church, are not to be received in their grades, according to the foreign council; but they are to be excepted through whom they received the advice to return to Catholic unity.”

4. Moreover, the letter of Pope Stephen V of pious memory (885-891) to Emperor Basil I in 885 or 886 proves that no pope annulled the 869-870 Council, since Photius, who nonetheless died in the odor of sanctity, was still, at the time, trying to have the former council abrogated. See Fr. Grumel’s “La Lettre du Pape Étienne V a l’empereur Basile Ier” on pp. 129-136 of the 1953 edition of Revue de etudes byzantines; the letter, according to p. 137, is from the manuscript Sinaiticus gr. 1117, 326v-328v. Fr. Dvornik of pious memory did not address this even in the 1970 edition of his monumental work, The Photian Schism

[/quote]Ah, yes, the Banana Republic, that monument of misinformation. Its listing of the Catholic Metropolitans of Kiev is very amuzing.

On the mss. it refers to

Quote

Quote

The Vetus Synodicon is an anonymous work listing all the councils of the church up to 887 AD, and so presumably written soon after. Each council is covered by a single chapter. The author has digested material from the Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius, Socrates, etc. However the compiler adds small details not recorded by these historians -- the number of bishops attending synods, etc -- which the editors suggest he invented himself. Some of the synods are doubtful or imaginary. "In his zeal ... the writer was anything but a careful researcher, and although in places his sources or copyists may be at fault, he himself must be held responsible for most of those numerous errors which in the past have prevented scholars from treating the SV as a historical document above suspicion." (Duffy p. xv)

A large MS by various hands whose first half is occupied by the nomocanon, the collection of canons, and the commentaries of Theodore Balsamon, while the second contains a miscellany of texts including imperial novellae, canonical and synodical decisions, patriarchal letters, and three treatises on synods: Germanus, De haeresibus et synodis (257V-264V); an anonymous description of ecumenical and selected local councils (311r-324v); SV, all 166 chapters (357v-365r). The section of the MS from 340r to 372V was badly damaged by moisture, and a later hand went over many of the affected parts in an effort, often unsuccessful, to retrace the obliterated writing. Toward the end of SV the original scribe (364r-365r), pressed for time or space, began to compress his writing and even resorted to pruning words. Otherwise he stayed close to the exemplar and made few copying errors.

The question I always want answered on this is that since EP St. Photios spent as much time deposed and in exile (886-897, the earliest death date I've seen is 890, which would be four years), how is it that his version survived his patriarchate?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.

This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

....post redacted for length....

Orthodox Christians affirm one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" -that Church for us is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, which is in schism and regards all who affirm papal infallibility is not true or reasonable are excommunicated (from the Roman Catholic side). This type of perspective seems to "offend" some Roman Catholics, but it is not meant to offend anyone but to express Orthodox Christian belief.

This was a good post. Very thought-provoking. I'll probably have to read it a few more times to really absorb everything, but just wanted to say well done.

Yes indeed!

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.

This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

....post redacted for length....

Orthodox Christians affirm one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" -that Church for us is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, which is in schism and regards all who affirm papal infallibility is not true or reasonable are excommunicated (from the Roman Catholic side). This type of perspective seems to "offend" some Roman Catholics, but it is not meant to offend anyone but to express Orthodox Christian belief.

This was a good post. Very thought-provoking. I'll probably have to read it a few more times to really absorb everything, but just wanted to say well done.

Hi Zealous. I see from your profile that you're "Torn between Rome and Byzantium".

I was asked recently whether I'm Anglican. I'm not (and never have been) but if I were, I think I would stay put for a while, simply because I would find it extremely difficult to choose between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Anyhow, not trying to make this about me, just want to say that it's always gratifying to see someone deliberating between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, rather than thinking that one choice or the other is obvious.

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.

This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

....post redacted for length....

Orthodox Christians affirm one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" -that Church for us is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, which is in schism and regards all who affirm papal infallibility is not true or reasonable are excommunicated (from the Roman Catholic side). This type of perspective seems to "offend" some Roman Catholics, but it is not meant to offend anyone but to express Orthodox Christian belief.

This was a good post. Very thought-provoking. I'll probably have to read it a few more times to really absorb everything, but just wanted to say well done.

Hi Zealous. I see from your profile that you're "Torn between Rome and Byzantium".

I was asked recently whether I'm Anglican. I'm not (and never have been) but if I were, I think I would stay put for a while, simply because I would find it extremely difficult to choose between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Anyhow, not trying to make this about me, just want to say that it's always gratifying to see someone deliberating between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, rather than thinking that one choice or the other is obvious.

I know that several on here were torn between the two for a long time. It's no easy decision for a person to make. I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.

This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

....post redacted for length....

Orthodox Christians affirm one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" -that Church for us is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, which is in schism and regards all who affirm papal infallibility is not true or reasonable are excommunicated (from the Roman Catholic side). This type of perspective seems to "offend" some Roman Catholics, but it is not meant to offend anyone but to express Orthodox Christian belief.

This was a good post. Very thought-provoking. I'll probably have to read it a few more times to really absorb everything, but just wanted to say well done.

Hi Zealous. I see from your profile that you're "Torn between Rome and Byzantium".

I was asked recently whether I'm Anglican. I'm not (and never have been) but if I were, I think I would stay put for a while, simply because I would find it extremely difficult to choose between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Anyhow, not trying to make this about me, just want to say that it's always gratifying to see someone deliberating between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, rather than thinking that one choice or the other is obvious.

I know that several on here were torn between the two for a long time. It's no easy decision for a person to make. I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.

I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.

In a way ... But, in another way, just the opposite. That is to say, I don't think that a cradle Orthodox, or a cradle Catholic like myself, is faced with the Catholicism-or-Orthodoxy question in the way that someone coming from Protestantism is.

I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.

In a way ... But, in another way, just the opposite. That is to say, I don't think that a cradle Orthodox, or a cradle Catholic like myself, is faced with the Catholicism-or-Orthodoxy question in the way that someone coming from Protestantism is.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I feel as Peter has described. I come from an Evangelical background.

And Peter- it is certainly not an obvious choice for me. Though I am leaning more in one direction than the other at this point, it is still a day by day thing.

I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.

In a way ... But, in another way, just the opposite. That is to say, I don't think that a cradle Orthodox, or a cradle Catholic like myself, is faced with the Catholicism-or-Orthodoxy question in the way that someone coming from Protestantism is.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I feel as Peter has described. I come from an Evangelical background.

And Peter- it is certainly not an obvious choice for me. Though I am leaning more in one direction than the other at this point, it is still a day by day thing.

I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.

In a way ... But, in another way, just the opposite. That is to say, I don't think that a cradle Orthodox, or a cradle Catholic like myself, is faced with the Catholicism-or-Orthodoxy question in the way that someone coming from Protestantism is.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I feel as Peter has described. I come from an Evangelical background.

And Peter- it is certainly not an obvious choice for me. Though I am leaning more in one direction than the other at this point, it is still a day by day thing.

Dude, you are still not living up to your username!

Which is sorta awesome. Keep it up.

Haha! Thank you. How can I live up to it better? Maybe if I say everything super excitedly?

(also, in my neck of the woods we call everybody "Dude", but on the off chance you meant it literally, I am a Dudette. )

I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.

In a way ... But, in another way, just the opposite. That is to say, I don't think that a cradle Orthodox, or a cradle Catholic like myself, is faced with the Catholicism-or-Orthodoxy question in the way that someone coming from Protestantism is.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I feel as Peter has described. I come from an Evangelical background.

And Peter- it is certainly not an obvious choice for me. Though I am leaning more in one direction than the other at this point, it is still a day by day thing.

Dude, you are still not living up to your username!

Which is sorta awesome. Keep it up.

Haha! Thank you. How can I live up to it better? Maybe if I say everything super excitedly?

(also, in my neck of the woods we call everybody "Dude", but on the off chance you meant it literally, I am a Dudette. )

I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.

In a way ... But, in another way, just the opposite. That is to say, I don't think that a cradle Orthodox, or a cradle Catholic like myself, is faced with the Catholicism-or-Orthodoxy question in the way that someone coming from Protestantism is.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I feel as Peter has described. I come from an Evangelical background.

And Peter- it is certainly not an obvious choice for me. Though I am leaning more in one direction than the other at this point, it is still a day by day thing.

Dude, you are still not living up to your username!

Which is sorta awesome. Keep it up.

Haha! Thank you. How can I live up to it better? Maybe if I say everything super excitedly?

(also, in my neck of the woods we call everybody "Dude", but on the off chance you meant it literally, I am a Dudette. )

Get ready for the sudden increase in helpful PMs.

Aaahhh.... The last horse crosses the finish line. Hahaha, I get it now.

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.

This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

"as [you've] informed us that respect chills love, it is natural to conclude that all your pretty flights arise from your pampered sensibility; and that, vain of this fancied preeminence of organs, you foster every emotion till the fumes, mounting to your brain, dispel the sober suggestions of reason. It is not in this view surprising that when you should argue you become impassioned, and that reflection inflames your imagination instead of enlightening your understanding." - Mary Wollstonecraft

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.

This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

I never did come back to this.

Your post responded predominately to a strawman. My point was that Rome held a 'similar position', that is in it's importance. Identical? No. Papacy? No. Similar? Yes.

How is it similar? Concisely:-When the Roman church was young it was seen as a mother to other churches (charity). (biblical)-The next few hundred years it was an arbiter to resolve conflict being a central hub of communion. Not as a papal head, but a source to bring notice to other bishops of heretical occurrences.-That the church itself was always a hub of communion increase it's prestige. It then began to recognize that in its own right.-Separation from the Imperial capital enabled more freedom of the Bishop of Rome to focus on ecclesial matters, and not be an court bishop.-The Roman church then saw this continued prestige as a privilege as the See of Peter. (The Pope became the "Vicar of Peter".)-The destruction of the provincial church structure in the West by the Kings lead to more Papal influence.-The destruction of the Spanish and N. African churches, who had functioned independently and classically from Rome, made Rome the only power in the West.-Movement to free itself from state control, the Church moves away from state/imperial influence to the Pope himself being the Imperial head.-The last 700 years has been a battle of how much power is correct and/or appropriate for the Papacy. (The Pope became the "Vicar of Christ")

My point has nothing to do with your last post. The Bishop/Metropolitan/Patriarch structure mostly destroyed by the 7th century in the West anyways.

Orthodox don't disagree that there was a Roman Primacy, they disagree with what developed into Roman Supremacy.

exactly. Like in many other differences between West and East, Latin and Orthodox, is a seemingly different ontological approach. The Latins seem to be grounded in reason, in fact, in a sometimes legalistic approach to ecclesiastical and ecumenical affairs or the politics of the Church. However, the Orthodox in the East, be it Oriental or Byzantine prefer a spiritual rather than legalistic approach. This has evolved into different kinds of doctrine and theology between East and West, especially emphasised after the split in the 11th century, and symbolised by the different evolving directions of theology. The scholarly approach of the Western tradition clearly evolved from the pseudo-legalistic approach of ecclesiastical organization favored in the Western mindset, and the more loose-knit highly spiritualized approach of the Eastern mindset is represented by the formal development of Hesychasm. Further, the monastic organization of the West was clearly more pragmatic than the origins in the deserts of the East. That being said, of course for a thousand years the Eastern fathers recognized a spiritual primacy from Rome because of Peter. We recognized that Latin fathers were a gem of the Holy Spirit, and we took their advice very seriously. The Latin fathers are very much Orthodox and part of our mutual Tradition. What else could explain how only the Orientals left over Pope Leo where as the Byzantines maintained a reconciliatory or diplomatic approach which culminated in the Council of Chalcedon. The Oriental fathers initially also held the Latins in high regard until the first splits. Had the Eastern Orthodox not held the Latins in high regard and favor, wouldn't it have made some geographic and at the time even political sense to side with the Orientals? The Latin influence dominated, because the Orthodox fathers never challenged the spirit of the primacy of Peter, but as has been aptly said in the above quote, its supremacy that is debated.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.

This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

I never did come back to this.

Your post responded predominately to a strawman. My point was that Rome held a 'similar position', that is in it's importance. Identical? No. Papacy? No. Similar? Yes.

How is it similar? Concisely:-When the Roman church was young it was seen as a mother to other churches (charity). (biblical)

In the Bible, Rome is Mother to no one. In fact, the Apostles at Rome are barely mentioned, let alone it being a mother to anyone. Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus...in the Bible these are Mother Churches. Rome's Mothers in fact.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth